Category: World

  • Putin Notified, Putin Conducted, Putin Declared Victory: The Tale of Another Russian Election Drama

    Putin Notified, Putin Conducted, Putin Declared Victory: The Tale of Another Russian Election Drama

    In a notable comedy film titled “The Dictator,” featuring Sacha Baron Cohen portraying the character General Aladeen, there’s a memorable scene where the dictator organizes his own version of the Olympics called the “Wadiyan Games.” In this event, the dictator competes in a sprint race where all other contestants must show deference to him. Any attempt to surpass him results in dire consequences, as he fires upon them. Eventually, when he grows weary, authorities intervene to swiftly conclude the race. This sequence was eerily similar to the Russian election, but it’s more horror in real life instead of a comedy on the screen.

    The Russian presidential election  became the biggest drama of the year. All opponents are either jailed or eliminated, with selections manipulated by the authorities. Despite these glaring irregularities, the election proceeds, with the lion’s share of votes conveniently going to Putin. There’s no votes  against mounting corruption, no votes over economic slowdown, and no votes from families of fallen soldiers. In this distorted scenario, it’s hardly a model of democracy.

    Vladimir Putin has declared a resounding victory in Russia’s presidential election amidst widespread protests both within the country and abroad, highlighting concerns over his increasingly authoritarian rule, the conflict in Ukraine, and a highly orchestrated electoral process that seemingly guaranteed his triumph. The election, criticized by the United States as “Clearly Neither Free Nor Fair”, saw Putin leading with 87.14% of the vote after 75% of the ballots were counted. Trailing behind was the Communist party candidate, Nikolai Kharitonov. The government boasted a record turnout of 74% of eligible voters, with Putin’s previous highest vote share recorded in 2018 at 76.7%, accompanied by a turnout of 67.5%.

    Putin delivered a victorious speech, acknowledging Western envy while staunchly affirming the fairness of the election. The conflict in Ukraine took center stage in his address, with Putin asserting his efforts to secure the border against recent incursions by pro-Ukrainian military units. He emphasized that his priorities as president would focus on the war in Ukraine, bolstering defense capabilities, and military strength.

    When questioned about the potential for a direct conflict with NATO, Putin remarked, “In today’s world, anything is possible…,Everyone understands that such an escalation could lead to a full-scale third world war. I doubt anyone desires that”. This statement was accompanied by a stark warning of the risks of nuclear war.

    For the first time, Putin addressed the death of Alexei Navalny, suggesting that he had consented to exchange the Kremlin critic for Russian prisoners in the West shortly before Navalny’s demise. “Regrettably, events unfolded as they did”, Putin remarked callously. “I agreed to one condition: a swap with no return. But that’s life”.

    In the shadow of Putin’s expected triumph, Russia’s beleaguered opposition mobilized to demonstrate its own resilience. Long queues formed at numerous polling stations across Moscow and other Russian cities as citizens responded to a call from Navalny’s widow to cast their ballots at noon on Sunday.

    Yulia Navalnaya, widow of Navalny, addressing supporters at the Russian embassy in Berlin, urged them to participate in a symbolic display of strength dubbed “Noon Against Putin”. This initiative, endorsed by her late husband before his untimely death in an Arctic prison a month prior, garnered significant attention.

    Navalnaya was met with resounding applause and chants from voters as she expressed gratitude for their turnout to honor her husband. “You give me hope that our efforts are not in vain, that we will continue to fight”, she remarked in a statement on Sunday, revealing that she had inscribed “Navalny” on her own ballot paper.

    Meanwhile, Navalny’s team called upon voters to invalidate their ballots, inscribe “Alexei Navalny” on the voting slip, or support one of the three candidates challenging Putin, despite the opposition’s characterization of them as Kremlin “Puppets.”

    On Friday, Russian prosecutors issued threats of five-year prison sentences to any voters participating in the “Noon Against Putin” initiative. In Kazan, a southern city, over 20 individuals were detained by police for joining the protest, as reported by the independent rights monitor OVD-Info. Similar arrests occurred in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

    In the lead-up to the election, Russian citizens engaged in various acts of protest, such as pouring dye into ballot boxes and initiating arson attacks at polling stations. Ella Pamfilova, Russia’s election commissioner, condemned those who spoiled ballots as “Bastards”, while former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that such actions could result in treason sentences of up to 20 years. The Russian interior ministry reported 155 administrative charges and 61 criminal cases filed during the elections, Including 21 instances of obstructing voters’ rights.

    Amidst Putin’s impending victory, Russia disqualified anti-war candidates, ensuring the Russian leader faced no substantive competition. Authorities barred two candidates critical of the war in Ukraine, leaving three others who did not directly challenge Putin’s authority. Their participation aimed to lend an aura of legitimacy to the electoral process.

    Following constitutional amendments orchestrated in 2020, Putin is poised to seek two additional six-year terms after his current one expires next year. This could potentially extend his tenure until 2036, surpassing Joseph Stalin’s rule over the Soviet Union, which lasted 29 years. Consequently, Putin would become the country’s longest-serving leader since the era of the Russian empire. As Ukrainian President Zelensky aptly remarked, Russia now has a leader who appears addicted to power.

  • Russia’s Presidential Election: Putin is Ready for his “First Term”

    Russia’s Presidential Election: Putin is Ready for his “First Term”

    While influential opposition leaders are either being murdered, jailed, or barred, Russia is preparing for its upcoming presidential election in the coming weeks. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has carefully crafted constitutional modifications to prolong his term in office, looks set to win his fifth election. As for the 2020 constitutional amendment, which essentially “Nullified” his prior tenure, he is officially running for another term, but the March 15–17 election will be his first under the new structure. Thanks to this clever political maneuvering, Putin is able to seize several openings, leaving his opponents with no choice but to surrender or risk certain death. The most recent victim was Alexei Navalny, who was barred from future participation in democratic elections in Russia. 

    In December, during a staged event in an opulently furnished Kremlin ballroom, Putin declared his candidacy while speaking with a separatist “Colonel” from the Donbas region of southeast Ukraine. He has four terms under his belt. In 2000, he won the presidency, and he was reelected in 2004, 2012, and 2018. Due to the constitution, he was not elected president during a brief tenure in between; instead, he served as prime minister and also “Super President”. As anticipated, he will serve a further six years if he prevails, as the term has been extended by constitutional revisions. His fifth term would begin with this. After that, he is eligible for a sixth term  in 2030. 

    Since Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader, the 71-year-old former KGB spy has already led Russia for the longest period of time. Putin’s increasingly harsh handling of opponents, critics, and antiwar demonstrators has drawn comparisons to Stalin’s “Big Terror” operations. To those who support the Kremlin, however, Putin is seen as a political “Genius” who stopped Russia from collapsing, brought billionaire oligarchs under control, and defeated Chechen insurgents. In addition, Putin’s admirers refer to him as a “Gatherer of Russian Lands,” a dignified moniker bestowed upon Russian princes and czars, for his actions in the 2008 war against Georgia, the recognition of two breakaway Georgian statelets, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and his intentions to annexe full of Ukraine. 

    Putin’s most vocal political rival, Alexey Navalny, passed away in an Arctic prison on February 16 in what his family, followers, and a large portion of the international community considered to be political murder. In the 2018 presidential election, which Putin won with about 78% of the vote, Navalny was not allowed to register. Further opposition activists, Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kaza-Murza, have been sentenced to eight and a half years and twenty-five years in prison, respectively, for their criticism of Putin’s war in Ukraine. Numerous opposition activists, critics, and normal Russian citizens who shared or liked antiwar comments on the internet have also been charged with crimes in thousands of cases. Tens of thousands have been detained, fined, or expelled from the nation. Russian Democracy is defined here. 

    This is the first three-day voting in Russian history as opposed to the usual one-day one. Additionally, this marks the debut of internet voting for voters in 29 locations. In Russia, 112 million people who are at least 18 years old are able to cast votes. Voting will also take place in occupied Crimea and other parts of Ukraine, a move that Kiev and its Western supporters have denounced as illegal. Millions of Russian citizens residing overseas, from California in the United States to the southern Kazakhstan spaceport of Baikonur, which Russia leases, are also able to cast ballots via mail, consulates, or embassies.  The initial results are anticipated to be made public on March 19 and the final result on March 29. According to official estimates, the officially-expected turnout is almost as high as it was during the 2018 election, when about 68 percent of Russians cast ballots. 

    There’s hardly much optimism for a free and fair vote among those who follow Russian politics. Due to the widespread perception of the current United Russia party as corrupt and ineffective, Putin is contesting as an independent. It was referred to as the “Party of Crooks and Thieves” by late opposition leader Navalny. Other contenders are viewed as symbolic figures whose involvement serves mainly to demonstrate Putin’s “Popularity.” The Communist Party’s Nikolay Kharitonov is one among them. 

    Boris Borisovich Nadezhdin is an opposition politician who has openly condemned the war in Ukraine, said he will designate unbiased observers to supervise elections, and promised to keep appealing the rulings of the Supreme Court against him. But he’s not going to be able to run at all. Sometimes he will also in his final time.

    Nobody is expecting a different result from this election; Putin is viewed as a strong leader, and he is successful in portraying this image. Additionally, his admirers claim that the Russian Federation would fall apart and pandemonium will envelop the country in his absence. The Russian nationalists are therefore standing firm beside him. His drives for “Slavic Unity” and “Russia First”. However, many disbelieve the percentage of vote he gained in elections. The unnatural death of opponents increased screening of opposing candidates, videos of election employees making dubious actions in the booth, a lot of suspicious activity raised doubts in his win. Putin, however, will still receive more than 60% of the vote in the current scenario, and all of the leaders hail him as Russia’s savior. And he will continue to be the ruler. Russia presents new conceptions of democracy that any rulers craving power can embrace.

  • The US Military to Construct a Port in Gaza: Will it Help Reach Humanitarian Aid to Gaza?

    The US Military to Construct a Port in Gaza: Will it Help Reach Humanitarian Aid to Gaza?

    This is cruel punishment. Whatever the reason for the Gaza people are suffering, They are suffering it in a very cruel manner. Basic need of people is declining, there is nothing left, buildings are collapsing , the casualties by the Israeli army’s attack is skyrocketing, and the war effect is now deepening in Gaza, kids are starving, some find peace by the death. And the war of the neighbors, war for religion is getting its very disastrous situation. For the 1200 Israeli’ blood, Israel took back more than 30000 lives of Palestinians. 

    The conflict in Gaza appears to have no imminent resolution. Israel remains steadfast in its pursuit of complete control over the region, contributing to a prolonged war. The division among Islamic countries adds complexity, and the Western world, despite its advocacy for human rights, faces challenges in providing even humanitarian aid. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia no one has been unable to reach Gaza with aid.

    Israel’s reluctance to open doors for humanitarian assistance, coupled with Egypt’s cautious approach, further exacerbates the dire situation. The region appears to be ensnared in a fortress-like blockade, contending not only with external threats but also facing internal challenges, particularly from groups like Hamas. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs and open avenues, the looming risk of one of the world’s largest massacres hangs over Gaza.

    As Prominent supporter of Israel, the United States is finally acting in response to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. President Joe Biden is set to unveil a substantial initiative in his upcoming State of the Union address, as disclosed by three senior administration officials on Thursday. This initiative entails a pivotal role for the U.S. military, tasked with establishing a temporary port in Gaza. The strategic plan leverages the distinctive capabilities of the U.S. military, aiming to construct a port or causeway without deploying troops to Gaza’s shores. The primary objective is to enhance access to essential provisions, encompassing food, water, medicine, and various other forms of aid, for the Palestinian population.

    Officials emphasized, the operation is not intended to involve U.S. boots on the ground. The initiative aims to create a maritime corridor from Cyprus to Gaza in collaboration with governments and commercial partners, supplementing aid delivered through airdrops and land routes. The decision to resort to this military mission stems from concerns that Israel is not permitting sufficient aid to address the humanitarian crisis resulting from the Israel-Hamas conflict affecting 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza. In addition to the establishment of a temporary port in Gaza, The U.S. is actively urging Israel to open more land routes, enabling quicker and more efficient assistance to reach those in need.

    While the scheme, involving the construction of a temporary pier by U.S. military engineers off the coast of Gaza City, will take several weeks to implement, concerns persist that it may supply insufficient relief too late. Aid experts, while acknowledging it as a step in the right direction, argue that leveraging U.S. influence to open more land routes for humanitarian assistance would be a more effective strategy.

    The Larnaca port in Cyprus will serve as the primary relief hub, facilitating aid shipments to Gaza. President Biden is set to announce this emergency mission during his State of the Union address, with the aid deliveries expected to come through a collaborative effort with like-minded countries and humanitarian partners.

    Though The maritime corridor plan encounters numerous challenges, particularly in addressing how to efficiently unload, secure, and distribute the aid. Several U.S., European, and Middle Eastern officials, including four others, have indicated that many aspects of the plan are still under discussion. While smaller aid packages are expected to arrive by sea soon, a coordinated effort is required to establish a regular schedule for larger assistance shipments across the Mediterranean, a process anticipated to take 45 to 60 days.

    The initial entry point for aid will be the Larnaca port in Cyprus, situated approximately 230 miles from Gaza and already equipped with advanced screening technology for Israeli officials in Cyprus to inspect deliveries. Given Gaza’s lack of a functioning port, President Biden has directed the U.S. military to assist in establishing a temporary pier, though the specific roles of other partners in this endeavor remain uncertain. Negotiations with Israel regarding a security and crowd-control mission on the beachhead are ongoing, including discussions about potential Israeli involvement in demining staging areas for the aid.

    Criticism of Biden within his own party for the failure to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza, where a famine is looming and casualties from the conflict have reached 30,000, has intensified. The UN has warned of catastrophic levels of deprivation and starvation among over a quarter of Gaza’s population, emphasizing the urgency of action to prevent widespread famine.

    Dispersing aid throughout Gaza, an active war zone with security risks for aid workers, presents a significant challenge. The multinational coalition plans to rely on the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and other groups to ensure targeted distribution. Talks between the United Arab Emirates and Qatar with the Cypriots are underway to explore their potential contributions to the maritime corridor. While officials from both governments have not responded to requests for comment, there are reports of UAE-funded aid arriving in Gaza the following week.

  • Kyrgyzstan’s Kyzyl-Ompol: Government’s Reassurances Fail to Quell Uranium Worries

    Kyrgyzstan’s Kyzyl-Ompol: Government’s Reassurances Fail to Quell Uranium Worries

    Large-scale development projects face numerous challenges when implemented in developing countries, and Kyrgyzstan, a nation nestled in the mountains of Central Asia, is no exception. Seen as a crucial element in the country’s future, the ambitious Kyzyl-Ompol uranium mining project is entangled in a complicated relationship between environmentalists, skeptical citizens, and proponents of progressive growth. 

    Kyrgyzstan is one of the most economically disadvantaged in Asia, currently holding the unenviable title of the second poorest country in Central Asia, trailing behind Tajikistan. A staggering 22.4% of the population languishes below the poverty line, a stark reality exacerbated by the predominant reliance on agriculture in the challenging high mountain terrain where poor soil conditions impede progress and hinder improvements in people’s quality of life.

    However, a glimmer of economic potential emerges from the nation’s vast mineral reserves, offering a promising avenue to transform Kyrgyzstan’s financial standing. Collaborating with strategic allies like Russia, China, and India, the country is cautiously exploring the untapped possibilities within its mineral wealth. Noteworthy among these resources are substantial deposits of coal, gold, uranium, antimony, and other coveted metals.

    The significant presence of uranium, a mineral in high demand, amplifies Kyrgyzstan’s potential on the global stage. As diplomatic ties with China strengthen, there is an anticipation that the country will leverage its mineral reserves to forge a path towards economic revitalization. 

    The Kyrgyzstan government’s initiatives to harness uranium and various rare earth metals around the revered Lake Issyk-Kul, often likened to a sea for this landlocked nation and its most populous tourist destination, have sparked discontent among the people. However, a pervasive fear of reprisals has led to a muted expression of concerns among the populace.

    In a concerted effort to alter public sentiment, the government is actively working to address apprehensions. President Sadyr Japarov took a significant step in this direction last month by traveling to the city of Balykchy. Here, he engaged with community representatives from the Issyk-Kul and Naryn regions, seeking to provide assurances and clarity regarding the developments at the Kyzyl-Ompol field.

    During his address, President Japarov emphasized the potential creation of over 1,000 job opportunities in the area, attempting to assuage the concerns of residents like Kubatbek Japarov assured us that this venture would be akin to a second Kumtor gold mine, with all proceeds from the uranium excavation flowing directly into the state coffers.

    Officials aligned with President Japarov have affirmed that the state will take charge of the mine’s development, asserting that this hands-on approach ensures the utilization of safe and responsible methods. Additionally, they downplayed the prominence of uranium at the Kyzyl-Ompol site, placing emphasis on the extraction of titanomagnetite, a unique mineral with diverse applications ranging from steel production to extracting titanium. 

    Concerns about the potential development of Kyzyl-Ompol have been festering for a minimum of five years. In 2019, a year prior to President Sooronbai Jeenbekov’s displacement by Japarov, local activists orchestrated protests against the exploration efforts of the Russian company UrAsia Kyrgyzstan. In response to the public outcry, authorities took decisive action and revoked the company’s license.

    While the government has acknowledged the simmering protests in the recent year, there is a gradual shift in public sentiment. However, rights activists contend that a broader suppression of dissent is systematically quashing any form of disagreement throughout Kyrgyzstan through repressive measures. This crackdown has led to the imprisonment of numerous government critics, including some members of parliament.

    This fear of people of Kyrgyzstan and the broader Central Asian region is stained by the toxic legacy of the Soviet Union’s nuclear industry. A uranium mine and plant in the southern Kyrgyz town of Mailuu-Suu played a crucial role in producing fuel for the Soviets’ first atomic bomb for over two decades following World War II. Although uranium mining ceased in Mailuu-Suu in 1968, the area had already become highly contaminated due to a tailings dam failure in 1958 and the negligent disposal of radioactive materials.

    Mailuu-Suu, situated upstream of the densely populated Ferghana Valley, currently harbors more than 20 uranium tailings dams containing nearly 2 million cubic meters of toxic material, some of which are nestled into the banks of the local river. The town exhibits higher rates of diseases compared to other parts of Kyrgyzstan, and the looming threat of a natural disaster in this mountainous, seismically active region could have severe consequences for millions of people.

    Another site with a uranium mining legacy is Ming-Kush in the neighboring Naryn Province, where remediation efforts funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have contributed to securing toxic waste storage and decontaminating the area.

    Despite progress in some areas, numerous smaller-scale toxic waste sites persist across Kyrgyzstan, demanding cleanup more than three decades since gaining independence. Even if the focus shifts to mining titanomagnetite, the presence of uranium in a fairly high concentration raises concerns. During mining and transportation, the potential spread of uranium-laden dust poses risks to both the environment and the population. Some argue that this could lead to incidents akin to the 1998 spill of around a ton of cyanide into the Barskoon River, flowing into Lake Issyk-Kul, along the route to the Kumtor gold mine.

    Officials have been championing optimistic appraisals of Kyzyl-Ompol’s potential wealth for Kyrgyzstan, as Akylbek Japarov, the head of the Cabinet (no relation to the president), declared in January that the field boasts deposits valued at $300 billion. President Pledged that local residents would “get rich” and Kyzyl-Ompol would transform into “a second Kumtor”.

    Kyrgyz officials seem to regard uranium as a prospective source of robust currency through exports, offering a multifaceted solution. Beyond the economic dimension, there is a critical energy imperative. While Kyrgyzstan’s nuclear facility would naturally be smaller compared to those planned by its larger neighbors, the conceptual framework is already evolving. The country’s nuclear requirements are driven by climatic pressures on hydroelectric power, which currently contributes around 90 percent of domestically produced electricity. 

    Although the political aspirations align with the pressing energy needs, the implementation without the inclusion of public opinion and advanced technology could potentially result in disastrous consequences. The development of the nation and the success of this massive project hinges on paying close attention to what the people have to say and implementing the appropriate technological safeguards to finish the project. 

  • Saudi Arabia to Host the 2034 World Cup: How Saudi Arabia Evolves as the Leader of Islamic World 

    Saudi Arabia to Host the 2034 World Cup: How Saudi Arabia Evolves as the Leader of Islamic World 

    The football World Cup wields an unparalleled influence that surpasses other major events, be they in business, politics, or culture. The World Cup is not merely a sporting spectacle; it stands as one of the grandest festivals globally, overshadowing even the significance of major events like the Olympics and World Expo. The recently concluded 2022 World Cup final between Lionel Messi’s Argentina and defending champions France, with a reported global viewership of 1.5 billion, underscores its colossal reach.

    However, the reported figure of 1.5 billion viewers is likely an underestimate, given the tournament’s true global impact. Despite Qatar’s limitation to 32 participating teams, the World Cup emerges as a premier tourist attraction. Its ability to capture the collective attention of the world is unmatched.

    Hosting the World Cup is not just a privilege; it transforms into a nexus of business, politics, and international prestige. For the brief duration of one or two months, the host nation becomes the epicenter of the entire world. Qatar, recognizing the transformative potential of this privilege, invested a staggering $220 billion in the 2022 World Cup, surpassing the GDP of many nations. The return on this investment, however, extends beyond mere economic gains.

    Qatar strategically used the World Cup as a global stage, gaining unprecedented attention and featuring prominently on the world map. In that moment, the world became Qatar, and Qatar became the world. At Least people tried to find this small country in the Global map.

    Amid Qatar’s revelry, Saudi Arabia observed keenly, recognizing the World Cup as a unique avenue to attain global attention. Understanding the profound impact this sporting event can have on the international stage, Saudi Arabia discerned an opportunity to achieve their objectives by following in Qatar’s footsteps—by hosting a World Cup of their own. The World Cup’s demonstrated power and allure have turned it into a strategic tool for nations seeking a substantial impact on the global stage.

    Saudi Arabia is poised to take on the monumental task of hosting the 2034 World Cup, a tournament featuring 48 teams and over 100 games. The prospect of significant events and substantial business opportunities awaits the Kingdom. Despite the absence of an official announcement and the absence of contenders, Saudi Arabia stands unchallenged as the sole capable host for this colossal event. Notably, even Qatar, with its eight stadiums, is deemed insufficient to accommodate this 48-team tournament, reinforcing Saudi Arabia’s unique suitability for the task at hand.

    Unlike the cooperative format of the forthcoming World Cups in 2026 and 2030, which will be held in several nations, the 2034 edition will be held exclusively under Saudi Arabia’s exclusive control. The United States, Canada, and Mexico will all co-host the tournament in 2026, with the USA’s economic strength being matched by Mexico’s football tradition and Canada’s stadium infrastructure. In a similar vein, the 2030 edition takes place across six nations, ranging from Spain to Argentina, demonstrating the logistical difficulties involved in accommodating 48 participating nations and organizing over 100 games. 

    While the World Cup may not rival the Olympics in scale, the sheer magnitude of fan engagement surpasses that of the Olympic Games. The organizational efforts required are immense, demanding substantial commitments from participating countries. In this context, Saudi Arabia emerges as the sole bidder for the 2034 World Cup, establishing a compelling case through the creation of a football heritage featuring prominent leagues and big names. Their infrastructure is primed to handle the extensive demands of hosting over 100 games, and their financial prowess positions them to counter any opposition that may arise, aligning with the Kingdom’s aspirations for the global football spectacle.

    Saudi Arabia formally announced its bid to host the 2034 World Cup of soccer on Friday. Since no other expressions of interest were received by FIFA before the deadline late last year, the campaign’s success seems almost guaranteed. In recent years, the Kingdom has made large investments in well-known sports like golf, Formula One, soccer, and boxing, which has led to charges that it is “Sportswashing” its human rights record. 

    The perplexing question arises: why is Saudi Arabia allocating substantial resources to sports? This is particularly noteworthy for a country governed by Sharia law, historically seen as tribal and resistant to human rights considerations until the last few decades. However, Saudi Arabia, amid significant face shifts, is now seeking a foothold in the hospitality, technology, and real estate industries. The investment in sports business is viewed as a strategic move to present a changed image to the world, particularly in light of their endeavors in the global sporting arena.

    Hosting the football World Cup emerges as the pinnacle of this strategy, providing Saudi Arabia with a unique platform to showcase its transformed face to the world. In the span of two months, the Kingdom aims to position itself as a global host, highlighting not only its sporting prowess but also its advancements in hospitality, technology, and real estate—an astute and calculated move in the evolving narrative of Saudi Arabia on the world stage.

    The Qatar World Cup proved to be a strategic loss for Saudi Arabia. At that time, Saudi relations with Qatar were strained, but Qatar leveraged its increased missionary operations and showcased their importance for the U.S. mission within the region. By positioning themselves as mediators in various contentious issues, they subtly sidestepped Saudi Arabia, traditionally considered the global leader of Islam. Qatar’s influence extended through Al Jazeera media and strategic investments in Europe, giving them a certain eminence in the Muslim world.

    When Qatar hosted the World Cup, it elevated them to the global stage. Despite Saudi Arabia hosting major events and the UAE organizing the World Expo, nothing rivaled the impact of the FIFA World Cup. Qatar emerged as the shining star of the Muslim world who are the first world cup hosts from the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, aspiring to reclaim its historical position as the leader of the Islamic world, finds itself in good terms with all major global powers. The nation has made substantial advancements in infrastructure and business, yet the missing piece of the puzzle remains its “image”.

    This is precisely why Saudi Arabia, with its considerable financial resources, is prepared to invest heavily in the upcoming World Cup. The billions flowing into the event are anticipated to  boost their image and also provide a competitive edge over counterparts like Qatar and the UAE in the highly competitive hospitality business. Saudi Arabia has secured a golden opportunity, a chance bought with the currency of ambition. As the wise often proclaim, the path to nobility is paved with the currency of Kings.

  • Shrinking Russosphere: How Central Asia’s Cultural Uplift Will Affect Russia’s Interests?

    Shrinking Russosphere: How Central Asia’s Cultural Uplift Will Affect Russia’s Interests?

    Throughout history, language has consistently proven to be a crucial instrument in the delicate process of shaping national identities. The Russian language, in particular, stands out as one of the Soviet Union’s most powerful tools, adeptly molding diverse ethnic groups into a cohesive whole and forging a robust national identity. This linguistic force played a pivotal role in facilitating the dissemination of ideas, fostering the development of unions, and acting as a conduit for news to permeate society. Over time, it evolved into a unifying force, seamlessly binding together the disparate regions under Soviet rule.

    The Russian language has had a lasting impact on the global landscape even after the Soviet Union disintegrated. Despite changes in political landscapes, Russia, which is currently the successor to a “Russosphere,” observes the enduring effect of its language history. Russian continues to be the most widely spoken language in several republics, including the current Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

    As Russia, under Putin’s leadership, pursues ambitions of imperial resurgence through conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine, a counter-trend is quietly emerging in some nations seeking to rebuild their national identity by distancing themselves from the Russian language. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Central Asia.

    Originating in Eastern Europe, a movement has gained traction, aiming to dismantle Russian influence and foster distinct identities, particularly notable in the Baltic countries. Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, motivated by a yearning to reclaim their cultural heritage, strategically pivoted towards their ethnic languages—Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian. Simultaneously, English emerged as a Lingua Franca, supplanting Russian, enabling national radios, television, and cultural programs to successfully resonate with both domestic and international audiences. These Baltic nations adeptly navigated the transition, reclaiming their identities during the shift from the Soviet Union to Putin’s Russia.

    However, the pace and assertiveness in this linguistic and cultural transition varied across different Eastern European countries. Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and Georgia were comparatively slow and less assertive, leading to a different outcome. These nations continued to embrace Russian programs and news, and paid a price for not fostering a distinct cultural identity. Ukraine, in particular, faced internal divisions, as the lack of assertive Ukrainian language contributed to a large population of Russian influenced people..

    Georgia lost territories, while Moldova too grappled with internal divisions. Belarus, facing a crisis of identity, is now closely aligned with Russia. The contrast in outcomes highlights the crucial role of linguistic and cultural choices in shaping a nation’s destiny, as Eastern European countries navigate the complex interplay between identity, politics, and external influences.

    Central Asia also embarked on a journey of self-discovery, slowly and amicably fostering their language and identity. However, the pace and approach differ markedly, as Central Asian nations lack the robust support enjoyed by their Eastern European counterparts from Europe and the United States. With a continued reliance on Russia for resources, financial support, and tourism, their journey has been shaped by a different set of challenges.

    While still dependent on Russia for essentials like gas and financial aid, the region is increasingly becoming a multi-player on the global stage. With a myriad of options, including support from Turkey, Qatar, Iran, India, China, and even Eastern Europe itself, Central Asian nations are strategically positioning themselves to diversify their alliances and reduce dependence on any single power.

    This shift opens avenues for Central Asia to make bold and swift moves in establishing and strengthening their languages and cultural identities. The geopolitical realignment not only offers opportunities but also poses challenges as these nations navigate a delicate balance between maintaining historical ties and forging new partnerships in their quest for identity.

    As the largest country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan grapples with intricate language dynamics, notably the coexistence of Russian and Kazakh. While Russian is not designated as a state language, Article 7 of Kazakhstan’s Constitution accords it equal status with Kazakh in state and local administration, despite Russian being the more commonly spoken language. The 2009 census sheds light on the linguistic landscape, revealing that a significant 84.8% of the population aged 15 and above in Kazakhstan can proficiently read, write, and understand Russian. 

    However, recent developments indicate a deliberate push towards elevating the use of the Kazakh language over Russian. In October 2023, Kazakhstan introduced a media law aimed at increasing the prominence of Kazakh. The law mandates a gradual rise in the share of the state language on television and radio, moving from 50% to 70% at a 5% annual increment, beginning in 2025.

    The matter of language in Kazakhstan stands as one of the most contentious issues today, marked by periodic language-related scandals. Language has evolved into a significant aspect of political rhetoric, particularly for politicians espousing a national-patriotic agenda. Arguments advocating for the strengthening of Kazakh’s position are gaining momentum, showcasing the complex interplay between linguistic identity, political discourse, and societal tensions in the country.

    Kyrgyzstan navigates a nuanced linguistic landscape, as Russian holds co-official status per Article 5 of the Constitution. According to the 2009 census, 8.99% of the population, approximately 482,200 individuals, speak Russian as a native language. Moreover, a significant 49.6% of Kyrgyzstan’s population aged 15 and above, or 1,854,700 residents, fluently speak Russian as a second language.

    At the close of 2023, Kyrgyzstan implemented a law on the state language, compelling civil servants, MPs, teachers, and healthcare workers to communicate in Kyrgyz. However, this move has sparked controversy, with Russian officials and propaganda outlets criticizing it as “undemocratic” and oppressive to the Russian language. Despite objections, language tests over three years reveal gaps in officials’ Kyrgyz proficiency, highlighting the need for improvement.

    The head of the National Commission for the State Language and Language Policy, Kanybek Osmonaliyev, is an advocate for allowing officials time to improve their Kyrgyz language proficiency. The new law stipulates that noncompliance with linguistic proficiency requirements will result in instant termination. Around 4.4 million people in Kyrgyzstan speak Kyrgyz, according to the census taken in 2022, and there is a rising desire among them to learn the language. 

    In Tajikistan, Russian serves as the language of inter-ethnic communication, permitted in official documentation under the country’s constitution. Despite being spoken by 28% of the population in 2006, and with 7% using it as their primary language in various settings, Russian remains integral in government and business. In Tajikistan, proficiency in Russian is often seen as essential for career success, granting access to modern literature and technology. While English holds promise, learning Russian is more affordable, and many families anticipate their children studying at Russian universities or working in Russia. However, Tajik language courses are scarce and expensive, with limited availability after school. The teaching system primarily focuses on literary Tajik, differing significantly from the modern spoken language.

    Contrastingly, in Turkmenistan, Russian lost its status as the official lingua franca in 1996. Approximately 12% of the population, those who grew up in the Soviet era, can speak Russian. Primary and secondary education in Russian is minimal for subsequent generations. Turkmen state press and the newspaper Neytralny Turkmenistan continue to publish material in Russian, and there are schools like the Joint Turkmen-Russian Secondary School. The country has made strides in revitalizing the national language, with only 18% of residents proficient in Russian in 2020. A radical language policy, notably the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin script, led to a significant outflow of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations. The reform also impacted education, eliminating Russian-language schools and university curricula despite the declared policy of trilingual education (Turkmen, Russian, English).These linguistic landscapes underscore the delicate balance between cultural preservation, economic considerations, and the evolving educational paradigms in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan.

    Russian is the official language of documentation, the lingua franca and language of the elite in Uzbekistan, and it plays an important role in interethnic communication. An estimate from the World Factbook that is not current states that 14.2% of people speak Russian. Russian is nevertheless widely used even though it is not an official language, especially in big cities, business, and science. Its persistence in society is partly due to the belief that education in Russian is better than in Uzbek. 

    Uzbekistan, among Central Asian countries planning to transition from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet since 1993, has faced multiple delays in implementing the change, with the latest deadline set for 2023. While some school textbooks have been published in the Latin alphabet, the shift has resulted in a nuance: young people not proficient in the Cyrillic version of Uzbek find themselves disconnected from the world’s literary heritage, as limited fiction, including classical works by Uzbek authors, has been adapted into Latin.

    The Russosphere stands at a crossroads, its existence intricately tied to the Russian language. Contrary to the belief that language merely spreads culture, it wields power. Former Soviet nations, once deeply connected to Russia, are now charting their own paths, fostering distinct identities and pivoting from Russian towards English. These countries aspire to align with prosperous Western standards, a departure that is transforming the geopolitical landscape. The Russosphere, once synonymous with Russian dominance, is undergoing a deterioration, signaling a new chapter in the histories of these nations.

  • Palestine or Israel: What will be the future of Gaza?

    Palestine or Israel: What will be the future of Gaza?

    In the Middle East, a minuscule piece of land has become the focal point of global attention—the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory situated along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Bordered by Egypt to the southwest and Israel to the east and north, this region finds itself trapped in a quagmire of discussions, extending from the realms of social media to the chambers of the United Nations, with no resolution in sight.

    Since last October, the Gaza Strip has been a war-torn landscape, grappling with a severe humanitarian crisis. The conflict pits Israel against this tiny enclave, home to Hamas—a group viewed as terrorists, while others see them as champions of Islamic rights. Against a backdrop of streets stained with human blood and strewn with the remnants of demolished homes, hospitals, schools, and buildings, the enclave is on the verge of collapse.

    Israel’s retaliation for the loss of a thousand lives shows no signs of abating, with the toll on Gaza now reaching a staggering 25,000 people. The Israeli call for the uprooting of Hamas translates into a destabilization of Gaza itself, as diplomatic efforts, including UN resolutions and international pressure, falter in bringing peace to the region.

    As Israel’s fury persists, the question looms: will an independent Gaza emerge under the banner of a Palestinian state, or is it destined to be annexed by Israel?

    How the Gaza Issue Evolved?

    Palastine or Israel: What will be the future of Gaza?
    Map of Gaza (Source: Britannica)

    One of the world’s highest population densities, Gaza stands as a complex tapestry of religious and political dynamics. Sunni Muslims form the majority, with a Palestinian Christian minority woven into the fabric.  Over the years, Gaza has symbolized Palestinian nationalism, resistance, along with global Islamic solidarity, situated as a 41km (25-mile) long and 10km-wide territory between Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea. 

    Having been under Egyptian control, Gaza saw a shift during the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel captured it. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its troops and settlers, implementing a temporary blockade that became indefinite after Hamas took control in 2007, backed by Egypt. Despite being recognized as part of Palestine by many nations, Gaza lacks UN member status.

    The West Bank and Gaza, considered a single Israeli-occupied territory by the UN, are governed separately. The West Bank, under limited self-rule by the Palestinian Authority (PA), acknowledges Israel’s existence, while Gaza, ruled by Hamas, rejects it. The UN and human rights organizations assert that Gaza remains under Israeli military occupation, facing a blockade that restricts movement and goods, earning it the moniker “open-air prison.” 

    Hamas, having seized control in 2007, seeks an Islamic state in lieu of Israel, rejecting its right to exist. The recent conflict stems from perceived Israeli transgressions, including security raids on the al-Aqsa Mosque and West Bank settlement activity. The pursuit of a two-state solution faces staunch opposition, as both sides grapple with conflicting visions of coexistence.

    What’s happening in Gaza Now?

    Palastine or Israel_ What will be the future of Gaza
    Israeli Declared Buffer Zone (Source: Ocha)

    In the ongoing chapter of this enduring conflict, Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas find themselves locked in a deadly confrontation since early October. The hostilities were sparked when Hamas gunmen launched an unprecedented attack from Gaza into Israel, resulting in the deadliest incident in Israel’s history. Subsequently, Israel initiated a military campaign in the Palestinian territory, claiming thousands of lives.

    On the fateful morning of October 7th, waves of Hamas gunmen breached Gaza’s border, causing the death of approximately 1,200 people in Israel. The casualties included children, the elderly, and 364 young individuals attending a music festival. Hamas also took more than 250 people as hostages back to Gaza. The group’s demands include the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and an end to the blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt—measures both countries justify for security reasons.

    Having engaged in several wars with Israel, firing thousands of rockets and orchestrating lethal attacks, Hamas is branded a terrorist group by Israel, the US, the EU, the UK, and others. Israel, in response, has conducted numerous airstrikes and sent troops into Gaza in 2008 and 2014. Iran supports Hamas with funding, weapons, and training, further complicating the dynamics of this enduring conflict.

    In swift retaliation to the Hamas attack, Israel initiated an extensive air campaign targeting Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared the objectives as the annihilation of Hamas and the recovery of hostages. Subsequently, a ground invasion was launched three weeks later, accompanied by naval bombardment. The initial focus was on northern Gaza, particularly Gaza City and its tunnels, alleged to be central to Hamas military operations. A directive from Israel ordered the evacuation of all 1.1 million people in the north for their safety.

    After a brief truce in late November, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) extended ground operations to southern Gaza, reaching Khan Younis, the second-largest city, and refugee camps in central Gaza. Displaced individuals from the north were compelled to move further south, with plans to invade the southern town of Rafah, where approximately 1.5 million sought refuge.

    The toll on Palestinians has been devastating, with more than 28,000 killed and tens of thousands injured since the war’s onset, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. The majority of casualties are reported to be women and children. The IDF claims to have eliminated around 9,000 Hamas fighters, in addition to over 1,000 attackers inside Israel, without specifying the basis for these figures. Israel acknowledges over 230 of its soldiers killed in Gaza, while homes and structures in the region have suffered extensive damage and destruction.

    Israel employed a strategy of cutting off essential supplies, including food, water, and fuel, as a tactic to exert pressure on Hamas for the release of hostages. This approach resulted in severe shortages within Gaza’s population. Although Israel has permitted the entry of humanitarian aid, medicines, and limited fuel quantities since then, the delivered aid falls significantly below pre-war levels.

    The UN has accused Israel of hindering aid delivery, while Israel, in turn, has attributed problems to the UN. Describing the situation in Gaza as “horrific,” the UN has highlighted overflowing shelters, depleting food and water supplies, and an escalating risk of famine. Gaza’s health system is on the brink of collapse, with only 16 out of 36 hospitals partially operational. These facilities grapple with an overwhelming number of injured individuals and face shortages of staff, medical supplies, food, fuel, and water.

    Future Plans on Gaza

    The vision for Gaza’s future appears precarious, with the Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, proposing a post-war scenario where Hamas loses control, and Israel maintains overall security dominance. Under this plan, a multinational force would oversee the reconstruction efforts after the extensive destruction caused by Israeli airstrikes, and Egypt might have an unspecified role.

    However, the proposal maintains that Palestinians would be responsible for governing the territory, with the condition of non-hostility toward Israel. Despite some far-right members suggesting encouraging Palestinian citizens to leave Gaza for exile and re-establishing Jewish settlements—an idea criticized as “extremist” and “unworkable”—Gallant’s proposals are seen as relatively more practical.

    While Prime Minister Netanyahu has not publicly detailed his governance vision for Gaza, the overarching goal is to crush Hamas completely. Gallant’s plan outlines a more targeted approach in the north of Gaza, involving raids, tunnel demolitions, and air and ground strikes. The aggressive Israeli strategy signals an assertive stance against Hamas ruling Palestine, making the prospect of a free Palestine seem unlikely. In essence, Israel will decide the future of Gaza as they wish.

  • China to Deepen Ties with Hungary: A Strong Ally for China in Europe?

    China to Deepen Ties with Hungary: A Strong Ally for China in Europe?

    In a strategic maneuver, Beijing has made a notable move by extending an offer to enhance security cooperation with Budapest, a development unfolding against the backdrop of Hungary’s strained relationship with its EU and NATO allies. The burgeoning warmth in ties between Budapest and Beijing is becoming increasingly apparent.

    Hungary is portrayed by the Western media as a possible Trojan horse . The outspoken populist prime minister Viktor Orbán publicly declares his undying devotion to NATO and the European Union, but he also regularly questions important choices made by these institutions. Meanwhile, China, displaying its position as the second-biggest economy in the world and serving as a check on the US, is well-liked by Orbán and the Hungarian government. 

    The emerging Eastern axis, steered by China, actively seeks alliances in Europe. Europe grapples with the intricate challenge of navigating political and economic dynamics and is looking more aligned with the United States. Notable participants of China’s ambitious projects like Italy contemplating withdrawal from the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The combined pressure from the United States and European bodies creates an environment where additional participants may also contemplate withdrawal. In this time Hungary, becoming different, Viktor Orbán emerges as a formidable leader, adept at challenging the very institutions that China aims to influence. 

    Prime Minister Viktor Orbán entered into discussions with China’s Minister of Public Security, Wang Xiaohong, last Friday. In statements published by China’s official Xinhua news agency over the weekend, Wang expressed the intention to “deepen cooperation in areas including counter-terrorism, combating transnational crimes, security, and law enforcement capacity building under the Belt and Road Initiative.” The Chinese minister envisions making “law enforcement and security cooperation a new highlight of bilateral relations.”

    Hungary’s acceptance of China’s offer is a notable anomaly, considering its membership in the EU and NATO. This deviation from the norm is accentuated by Budapest’s distinctive position of maintaining closer ties to Moscow than any other EU member, while concurrently fostering a relationship with Beijing. Noteworthy is Prime Minister Orbán’s distinction last year as the sole EU leader attending a forum of the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing. Adding substance to this diplomatic shift, China’s electric vehicle manufacturer BYD has revealed plans to establish its inaugural European production factory in Hungary.

    Following the meeting with Wang Xiaohong on Friday, Orbán’s spokesperson emphasized the Prime Minister’s declaration that “respect is increasingly missing from international diplomacy, but it has always remained between Hungary and China.” The discussions centered on crucial aspects of security and stability. This unfolding narrative of heightened cooperation between Budapest and Beijing in the realm of security occurs against the backdrop of Hungary’s strained relations with its EU and NATO partners. As Hungary’s standing in Western states continues to deteriorate, recent actions, such as reneging on a commitment not to be the last to ratify Sweden’s NATO application, contribute to a further erosion of trust.

    Budapest’s evident isolation was underscored during the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, where notable Hungarian officials were conspicuously absent. Despite this, in a speech delivered in Hungary on Saturday, Prime Minister Orbán hinted at a change, announcing, “we are on course to ratify Sweden’s accession to NATO at the beginning of parliament’s spring session.” The ongoing tension was palpable as Hungarian officials declined meetings with visitors from Washington, a move that drew criticism from the US ambassador in Budapest, David Pressman, who expressed regret over the lack of engagement with the most senior US bipartisan congressional delegation to visit Hungary in years.

    Orban’s second term in office; in 2017, the two countries formally recognized their collaboration as an all-encompassing strategic alliance. Following the public outcry and protests in 2021 over Fudan University’s plans to open a campus in Budapest, the Hungarian government decided to put the project on hold and hold a vote on the issue. But the planned referendum was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on May 22, 2022, citing its global ramifications. Officials in Hungary promised that the project will be revived once the ruling Fidesz party won the 2022 parliamentary elections. 

    Hungary has used its veto power in 2020 and 2021 to intentionally obstruct the European Union’s attempts to formally renounce China’s activities in Hong Kong. On February 20, 2023, Wang Yi, a well-known diplomat and member of the Chinese Communist Party’s Politburo, visited Budapest to meet with Prime Minister Orbán, underscoring the importance of the diplomatic ties between Hungary and China. Péter Szijjártó, the foreign minister of Hungary, emphasized during the conference how important it is for the two countries to work together when navigating crises, saying, “When we have faced crises in recent years, Hungary has always come out of them stronger than it went into them.” On February 27, 2023, Orbán approved Wang Yi’s peace proposal, which sought to stop Russia from invading Ukraine. 

    Hungary has consistently diverged from EU positions critical of China, particularly on human rights issues, and has welcomed Chinese investments despite the EU’s call for member states to align their relations with China according to the bloc’s stance. Notably, Hungary hosts Huawei Technologies’ largest logistics and manufacturing base outside China, a move that has raised concerns as the European Commission warns of potential security risks posed by the telecom giant.

    Since 2016, Huawei has collaborated with Shanghai-based artificial intelligence firm Yitu Technology to develop solutions for smart cities, focusing on enhancing public safety and policing through the use of AI and surveillance. This intricate web of diplomatic and economic ties underscores Hungary’s complex position within the geopolitical landscape.

    If Orban continues to hold power in Hungary, it is likely that more issues will arise, potentially deepening existing problems with Europe. As a result, Hungary may find itself increasingly isolated in the region, lacking the support of both Europe and the US. However, aligning with China could open up new possibilities for Hungary. Simultaneously, for China, this alignment serves as a counter to Europe’s realignment with Vietnam and India. By establishing ties with Hungary, China aims to strengthen its foothold in Eastern Europe and capitalize on economic opportunities.

  • India and UAE Agree for a Trans-Continental Trade Corridor to Counter the BRI

    India and UAE Agree for a Trans-Continental Trade Corridor to Counter the BRI

    In a momentous diplomatic development, India and the United Arab Emirates have formalized a groundbreaking agreement, establishing a trade corridor strategically linking Europe and India through the Middle East via sea and rail routes. This calculated bypass aims to navigate away from Chinese funding, mitigate pirate threats, and avoid the Suez Canal rush. Unveiled during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the Gulf states, this ambitious initiative carries the endorsement of both the United States and the European Union.

    The Indian foreign ministry issued a statement detailing the framework agreement, although specific terms remained notably scarce. Emphasizing that this endeavor not only builds upon existing understandings and collaboration but also seeks to deepen cooperation between India and the UAE for the enhancement of regional connectivity. Initially introduced in September, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in New Delhi, the corridor’s expansive scope stretches from India, crossing the Arabian Sea to the UAE, and further extending through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel before ultimately reaching Europe.

    The narrative of the India-Middle East Economic Corridor unfolds against the backdrop of a persistent four-month conflict in Gaza, introducing disruptions to U.S.-backed initiatives that seek to deepen integration between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In response to the ongoing regional unrest, Saudi Arabia, a pivotal player, has opted to suspend normalization plans. Notably, inquiries seeking clarification on the specifics of the agreement from the UAE foreign ministry have remained unanswered.

    During their meeting, characterized by Indian Prime Minister Modi as a fraternal relationship, both he and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al Nahyan expressed optimism despite the formidable challenges in the region.

    India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (Source: SCMP) 

    In heralding the establishment of a contemporary trade route, this initiative elegantly resurrects historical pathways once traversed by ancient civilizations – the Romans, Greeks, Venetians, Arabs, and Indians. These routes, integral for centuries, regrettably fell into neglect following the opening of the Cape route and the Suez Canal. According to reports, the modern project unfolds with the development of cutting-edge ports, railways, and special economic zones. The unveiling of this initiative took place on the grand stage of the G20 summit in India, where President Biden’s plan not only secured the support of the United States but also garnered backing from the European Union, France, Italy, and Germany.

    The proposed plan outlines two distinctive routes – an east corridor linking India to the Gulf Arab states and a northern corridor connecting the Gulf states to Europe. Beyond showcasing the United States’ adeptness in rallying its Middle East allies against China’s ascendancy, this ambitious project also underscores the Gulf states’ intricate balancing act between long standing allies like the U.S. and emerging partners like China, all within the framework of an evolving global order. Analysts discern this strategic move as a direct challenge to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a monumental infrastructure project launched by Beijing a decade ago to forge global connectivity. Intriguingly, three of the nations involved in the new corridor are already members of the BRI, potentially placing them in a delicate position. Italy, a G7 member, is also part of the BRI, but reports suggest that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is exploring ways to strengthen ties with China while contemplating a “soft” exit from the BRI—a move deemed unconventional by some analysts.

    The recently formalized framework agreement between India and the UAE appears to signify a joint commitment by both nations to advance their ambitious plan for establishing a corridor.  Beyond the corridor agreement, the UAE and India have solidified their collaboration through the signing of a bilateral investment treaty. This comprehensive partnership extends to cooperation agreements covering diverse areas such as electrical interconnection, trade, and digital infrastructure. Prime Minister Modi, making his seventh visit to the Gulf state in nearly a decade, is poised to address the Indian diaspora at an Abu Dhabi stadium and participate in a summit in Dubai. Additionally, he is scheduled to inaugurate the first-ever stone-built Hindu temple in the Middle East in Abu Dhabi, underscoring the deepening ties between India and one of its major trading partners.

    The envisioned trade corridor is anticipated to streamline movements significantly, serving as a linchpin for various interests. This ambitious project acts as a tool for the United States, seamlessly connecting all relevant stakeholders in the region. For the Middle East, the corridor transcends mere business; it is inherently intertwined with politics. The financial aspect is pivotal in the collaboration between Israel and the Gulf states. This agreement ensures their alignment with the United States, as financial influxes consolidate their cooperative stance.

    Amidst the Biden era and the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Gulf states’ relationship with the U.S. has experienced a slight diminishment. However, there’s a subtle yet discernible shift in their stance, displaying a newfound interest in engaging with Russia and China. The hope lingers that this project will foster common interests with Israel.

    From a European perspective, this route promises an uninterrupted supply chain, mitigating concerns about pirate attacks, Suez Canal blockages, and political obstacles. Furthermore, the project attracts infrastructure investments from the region, providing Europe access to India’s expansive market.

    For India, the corridor is more than an economic conduit; it symbolizes a strategic move to bolster power in countering China, perceived as a potential adversary in their future trajectory. This economic trade corridor, therefore, serves as a catalyst for extensive political cooperation, poised to have a profound impact on the unfolding dynamics of the 21st century.

  • Escalating Tensions: US Unleashes Fresh Strikes on Houthis in Yemen

    Escalating Tensions: US Unleashes Fresh Strikes on Houthis in Yemen

    After Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic State, the United States has shifted its focus toward yet another extremist Islamic faction—the Houthis. This group has emerged as a substantial threat to the global trade route extending from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. The disruptive activities of the Houthis pose a significant risk to the critical trade pathway linking Asia and Europe, causing considerable financial losses for businesses worldwide.

    The United States has entered the arena, initiating targeted strikes against the Houthi group to incapacitate their offensive capabilities. Reports from Centcom indicate that the US precision-targeted a land-attack cruise missile and four anti-ship missiles, positioned for launch in the Red Sea. These military actions followed coordinated strikes by both the US and the UK on Houthi targets the day before. Yahya Sarea, the Houthi group’s military spokesman, affirmed, “These attacks will not deter us from our moral, religious, and humanitarian stance in support of the resilient Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and will not go unanswered or unpunished.”

    The Houthi movement, self-identifying as Ansar Allah (Supporters of God), emerged as a Shia Islamist political and military entity rooted in Yemen during the 1990s. Predominantly consisting of Zaidi Shias, its leadership maintains close affiliations with the Houthi tribe. By targeting ships linked to Israel, the Houthis project an image of themselves as formidable fighters for Islam. Notably, there is an alliance between Hamas, responsible for the October 7 attack on southern Israel, and the Houthis, both receiving substantial backing from Iran. The Houthis assert their assaults on Red Sea shipping as a demonstration of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, causing disruptions in crucial shipping routes and consequential impacts on international trade.

    Starting from November 19, the Houthis have seized a commercial ship in the Red Sea and subsequently directed attacks on over two dozen others using a combination of drones, missiles, and speed boats. Despite the Houthis claiming to specifically target Israeli-owned, flagged, or operated ships, or those bound for Israeli ports, a significant number of the vessels under attack have no discernible connection with Israel. Notably, even a British-linked tanker fell victim to Houthi attacks, which were attributed to “American-British aggression.”  The Houthi ship attacks have significantly affected global economies, compelling shipping companies to alter routes, resulting in delivery delays, price hikes, and overall economic repercussions. Egypt reported a nearly 50% drop in Suez Canal revenue in January, accompanied by a more than one-third decrease in the number of ships navigating the vital trade route. Major shipping companies have chosen a longer route around southern Africa in order to reduce risk.  

    The United States and the United Kingdom initiated airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen on January 11, responding to the attacks on Red Sea ships that posed threats to trade and freedom of navigation. President Joe Biden characterized the strikes as a “direct response” to safeguard these interests. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak deemed the action “necessary and proportionate” to protect global shipping. While US-led naval forces have successfully thwarted numerous attacks, the dynamics underwent a significant shift with the direct intervention of the United States in Yemen, aligning its interests with those of global shipping companies, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

    If the current tensions escalate into a war, the U.S. would face a challenging scenario. The Houthi rebels exercise control over Sanaa and the northwest, including the Red Sea coastline, effectively functioning as a quasi-government with the ability to levy taxes and issue currency. Given that the majority of Yemen’s population resides in these regions, any further escalation is likely to lead to a prolonged and intricate conflict. The Houthi involvement in Yemen’s civil war traces back to 2014, endowing them with substantial experience in enduring prolonged conflicts with the official government. Their resilience has been demonstrated through years of enduring airstrikes and ground combat.

    Saudi Arabia, a possible future participant in the conflict, has encountered significant Houthi attacks, prompting diplomatic endeavors to facilitate a peace accord. Despite a UN-mediated ceasefire in effect since April 2022, recent developments have diminished the likelihood of long-term stability in the region.

    According to the US, Iran is actively supporting Houthi attacks on ships, which is vigorously refuted by Iran and led President Biden to send a “private message” to Tehran requesting an end to these activities. There are still ongoing claims that Iran has secretly sent weapons to the Houthis, including ballistic, cruise, and drone missiles, in violation of a UN arms embargo. According to the Italian Institute of International Political Studies, Iran has been crucial in helping the Houthis set up drone factories in Yemen. In addition, there is evidence of military direction and assistance coming from the Islamist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is embarking on a Middle East trip with scheduled meetings in Israel, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the West Bank. According to Mr. Sullivan, Blinken’s top priority will be brokering a deal between Israel and Hamas, focusing on securing the release of hostages in exchange for a temporary cessation of hostilities in Gaza. The push for de-escalation in both Gaza and the Red Sea region is expected.

    In this context, the likelihood of a full-scale war akin to Iraq and Afghanistan is diminished, given the United States’ reluctance for such conflicts in the region. A settlement involving Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, and the USA appears as the most plausible outcome, given that economic interests take precedence for modern nations. The rapid rise in oil prices, compounded by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, poses further risks to the global economy. The potential costs of an escalating war would negatively impact every country, everyone will be a loser. 

    Sometimes, indeed, oil can play a crucial role in saving the world.